The Revision Petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.C.No.937 of 2007, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thirupur.

2. Alleging and asserting that the cheque issued by the Revision Petitioner for Rs.7,75,000/- to discharge the debt incurred by him on executing a pro-note, returned for the reason ‘account closed’. The respondent herein has filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The trial Court, on considering the evidence relied by the complainant and the defence taken by the accused held that the accused failed to discharge the reverse burden of presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. So held him guilty and sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- being the cheque amount.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No:103 of 2011 contending that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence relied by the defence. Though the accused has rebutted the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by cross examining Subramaniam (PW-2), examining DW-1 and establishing